Comments/Ratings for a Single Item
I would like the wider range of choices available for the tourney, given there is no overriding reason to restrict them. [As long as there is not a problem, I'd almost always opt for more.] Also, I was looking over the poll, and noticed that Berolina Chess is tied to the Avalanche rules page.
Both times it told me that m won, a came in second and M came in third. I confess I do not understand this, as it certainly appears that the votes for M and m were exactly equivalent. Notice the only difference between this vote and the one previously discussed is the addition of a guaranteed loser in b. I am not trying to be a nitpicker. But I still have problems with how the vote turns out, depending on the number of entries, and a random factor. By adding an apparently ignorable loser, the outcome is changed from 'a' winning to one in which apparently either 'm' or 'M' can win, depending on the random factor mentioned in the Eppley calculator.
You're proposing this set of votes: M36 > A > M32 M32 > A > M36 According to Stephen Eppley's MAM Calc script, which runs through the PHP on my website at http://www.duniho.com/remote-mamcalc.php, A would win. The condorcet method favors the least objectionable candidate to all voters. If only two people were to play one game, and they chose which game from three games, with votes like these, then A is the choice that is going to minimize discontent. If one of the voters really preferred either version of Mir Chess to A, voting to reflect his true preferences would allow one of the versions of Mir Chess to win over A. The MAM method will reflect voter preferences so long as people vote their true preferences. It can't and shouldn't be expected to secondguess what anyone's preferences would be. I have previously examined several voting methods. I consider the condorcet method to be the best in general, and I consider MAM to be the best version of the condorcet method.
Ah, I see. To be frankly honest, I wasn't paying sufficient attention to your stipulation and for that I apologize. I feel the way I do when I make a blunder in a chess game. Hm. But I think my position, though it may appear weakened, still has value.
You do say 'Unless the number of players justifies it...' You were surprised by the number of people who voted in the initial poll; you could also be surprised by the number participating in this one. I don't think that's likely, so that doesn't remain as a substantive concern.
I do still have concerns that I don't see you addressing. Perhaps you can.
I still do have the concern that some people will not meticulously list all four as you seem to suggest they should and the votes will diffuse and that caprice could end up diffusing them. With the exception of Falcon Chess and Falcon Chess 100, which I think independently qualified and should both be added if they are both ranked high enough, I am still in favor of 'no one's' A or B. I know someone who strongly dislikes cannons and because of that, he is likely to rank one version of Grand Shatranj much lower; someone else could do the reverse and the result is diffusion. On the other hand, both people who like Grand Shatranj might end up being disappointed to know that neither were included despite the fact that each voted for a version of it. Isn't there an assumption you are making that people who like Great Shatranj will tend to like both versions approximately equally, that people who like Falcon Chess will like Falcon Chess 100 almost just as much? I am someone who prefers less familiar games so I will rank Falcon Chess 100 higher. That's an example of how votes between Falcon Chess and Falcon Chess 100 could get diffused with neither of them qualifying (though I think it fair games since both qualified).
In actual fact, to sum up, I expect diffusion so the chances that any versions of Mir Chess, Grand Shatranj, Great Shatranj and Falcon Chess will show up are lessened and they are playing on an unequal footing. In my last comment, I suggested that we ran the real danger of both versions of both showing up. In fact, the opposite concern seems to be more germane, no?
What I am saying in both comments though is that people are unlikely to rank all versions of each similarly, though if they look at this thread, it may motivate them to do so, but how many will pay attention to this detail?
I am both an American and quite familiar with the Condorcet technique. In fact, I have for a few years now advocated it as a more democratic method than any other voting technique that I'm familiar with, especially IRV or 'Instant Runoff Voting' which I believe to be even less democratic than the unfortunate, zero sum, winner takes all method which decides most elections in American politics. Because I have had experience as an elected officer for a third party in America (who was in fact elected by an alternate voting technique), I have had the incentive and opportunity to look into other modes of voting. In my opinion, IRV violates the 'one man, one vote' principle we in America have fought to uphold. So, it was with great pleasure that I saw the MAM Condorcet Voting method being used here on chess variants website.
So my initial criticism which began this aspect of this thread is not of the voting method for which I have the utmost respect.
However, I do persist in thinking that my concern is a good one and it has been left unaddressed. I believe that listing two versions of Great Shatranj and two versions of Grand Shatranj as well as two versions of Mir Chess will unfairly diffuse them. It would be perfectly alright with me if they had been included in the first poll and each qualified separately. But they were not, unlike Falcon Chess and Falcon Chess 100, each included and each separately qualified.
I had been wondering how this problem would be addressed. I can say that I believe that either method A or method B proposed by 'no one' are plans that would address my concerns. I am not 'no one' but I happen to know who 'no one' is. Either method seems more fair and more democratic than the one now being implemented.
In response to 'no one''s comments, the Condorcet (MAM) voting method will not 'split the vote' between the very-similar games pointed out by Fergus. The method satisfies the following criterion: [from http://alumnus.caltech.edu/~seppley/] independence of clone alternatives (ICA, promoted by TN Tideman): If there is a subset of alternatives such that no voter ranks any alternative outside the subset between any alternatives in the subset, then the election outcome must not change if a strict subset of that subset is deleted from the votes and from the set of nominees. A sample election, where B and B' are the 'clones' (they may be from the same party, or just be very similar in some way): 40%: A > B > B' 30%: B > B' > A 30%: B' > B > A In a plurality voting system, such as you might be used to, A would win over B and B'. But in any Condorcet method, B would win, because B would win in an election against any single opponent.
This is not a divide and conquer technique. Multiple candidates from the same party can split the vote in a plurality election, such as is common in United States politics, but this poll is a ranked ballot condorcet poll. The condorcet method is not subject to the same problems as plurality voting, and in particular, multiple candidates from the same party will not split the vote in a condorcet election. Since the condorcet method is not used in most, if any, political elections, you are probably unfamiliar with it, and I would suggest reading more about it.
The purpose behind giving separate entries to different presets on the same page is to allow the participants of the tournament to democratically decide which of the very similar games they prefer to have in the tournament. There is no reason for anyone to split their votes among very similar games unless they have strong preferences for one over the other. I will not be changing this poll to fall in line with your suggestions.
This could be considered the well-known divide and conquer technique. In politics, it's the spoiler phenomena. For this tournament, it will likely result in the majority of the games so named being eliminated. I have 2 suggestions: A) Contact Mr. Duke, Mr. Joyce, and Mr. Paulowich, and ask them which variant should be the one to be included in the poll. While Mr. Capablanca cannot be asked his preference, it could reasonably be assumed that the game he designed would be the one he'd prefer. B) List only 5 games: Capablanca's Falcon Grand Shatranj Great Shatranj Mir then let the players decide which version they want to play. In the case of a tie, go with a predetermined game. While I may be mistaken, I believe Mr. Duke has expressed a preference for Falcon 100, Mr Joyce for the 'D' variants, and Mr. Paulowich for Mir32. Please note that I have listed 5 games, not 4. I do not find that there is a great similarity between Grand and Great Shatranj. I would point out that these 2 games are doubly handicapped, as they are placed in a 4 way contest between the 2 games. There are, in the D versions, 5 pieces different of the 10 in the games. Promotion rules are different. The boards also are of different sizes. What, exactly, is the criteria for deciding difference? How do these games fall on one side of the line, while games with apparently far fewer significant differences fall on the other side? As a ridiculous example, Dimension X uses all the standard chess pieces, and adds only 3 different pieces and more squares; Templar Chess adds only 1 piece and a few more squares; Alice Chess only adds more squares. As another ridiculous example, the drop games all may be considered quite similar. If different pieces, different boards and different promotion rules don't differentiate adequately among games, what does? One might gain the impression that these games are being singled out for their theme. Yet in the same way, FRC and CRC are the same, as is chess 256, chess 960.... I would respectfully ask that method B above be used for the tournament. If the games really are that similar, it should not make much difference which version is played in any game, should it?
Since the previous poll didn't list them separately, I question this approach, with the concern that votes for these games will be diffused resulting in their disqualification even though their cumulative might qualify them.
21 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.